| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| LD topics; Give me your veiws | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 5 2009, 05:16 PM (430 Views) | |
| +Reaver | Jan 10 2009, 09:30 AM Post #31 |
Troll
|
I'd have no choice but to consider that the effort was good if the net result is good, with one caveat: it must happen sooner rather than later. If we occupy Iraq for, say, 30 years, then finally accomplish all our humanitarian goals the effort can't be seen as good simply because if we use the same rate of casualties we would have been destroyed. If you want to misrepresent the the argument through oversimplification from here on out, expect brutal sarcasm and satirization from me in the future. As for the World War II example, it's idiotic to say that the main goal of World War II was to free the Jews locked up in Concentration Camps. Germany attacked Belgium, Russia, France, and other European countries. We only entered the war because of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. If you can find for me the number of casualties which resulted from nations entering the war with the sole idea of ending the Holocaust, then I would agree with you. But when the causes for the war are legitimate - stopping Germany's overaggression from conquering all of Europe and stopping the expansion of Germany and Japan - then those casualities go towards the overall mission of the war. Furthermore, should you understand the war was defensive for England, France, The United States, China, and Russia, you can understand their intent of self-defense means that the deaths to their civilian population doesn't count towards that total. Also consider how many more civilians died at the hands of the Axis Powers: Indonesia, which had no standing army, lost 4,000,000 citizens at the hands of the Japanese. The Indian Empire lost a great number of civilians. The Axis killed many more civilians than the Allies, but since the Allies were fighting against the Axis powers what do we care that the Axis powers killed civilians? |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
 |
 
|
| Simon | Jan 10 2009, 11:49 AM Post #32 |
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
I know I'm using an awful lot of what ifs, but what if the situation requires thirty years? I personally doubt it would, but supposing it honestly took thirty years to accomplish all humanitarian goals in Iraq, would it still be worthwhile? |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 11 2009, 12:16 AM Post #33 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
It is NOT oversimplification, though. I'll just list the facts, to show you how I'm drawing my conclusion: -The Iraqis were having their Human Rights oppressed by a brutal dictator, and no amount of talk/negotiation would solve that. -Going to war to solve said Human Rights oppression may cause a war that costs more lives than the oppression itself has cost up, up to that point. Therefore, because you contest that fighting the war to free their human rights, would cost more lives than the oppression itself has cost up to that point, it isn't worth fighting said war. Bad bigger than the good. However, that is the only logical conclusion you draw from that. The other logical conclusion I draw from that, is because you say the negatives of protecting their human rights outweigh the positives of protecting their human rights, their human rights aren't worth defending. That is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw from that. Otherwise their human rights would be worth defending. And therefore, any court, whose entire purpose is to protect the human rights of others, that decides its not worth defending some people's human rights, has no moral authority what-so-ever, and the US therefore has no incentive to be part of it.
Why do you always seem to never understand my points? The Axis powers were trying to wipe the Jews off the planet, and killed millions of them. If there is anything your UN court would try to prevent/stop, it would be something like the Holocaust. Isn't that what their [UN Human Rights Court] purpose is? Your UN Court would obviously try to protect the Human Rights of the Jews. And the only way that they could do that, would be war with Germany. And War with Germany in 1939 would be World War 2. Basically, take the assumptions we making with the Iraq war (taking how many people died in the Iraq War as statistics, and then for the sake of argument altering the War's purpose to protecting human rights), and apply them to WW2. That was something I was hoping you would understand on your own, but lets now proceed with the rest of my point with the previous in mind. I gave you the causalities, both civilian and military, that the entire war cost. And the total causalities for the War were much more sever than deaths cost during the Holocaust. So I ask you, if the cause of WW2 was changed to "Fighting the Axis, due to their violation of human rights around the world", and keeping in mind the casualties the war cost, would WW2 be worth fighting? Under the logic you have been presenting in this debate; No, WW2 would not be worth fighting for that reason. |
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 11 2009, 11:19 AM Post #34 |
|
Troll
|
This is a complete non sequitur. By no means does it invalidate their human rights, however a war will not solve the human rights issue presented; rather, it will exacerbate the situation and cause more human rights violations than it prevents. Other solutions exist and had we rallied greater help from the international community by working in tandem with the United Nations, we may have taken a safer route which a. accomplishes the goals of preventing human rights violations and b. prevents causing more damage than overly necessary. America failed in both regards with the Iraq War: we can only include full-out war with the primary objectives of attacking a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda) and disarming a state allegedly in possession of WMDs was - in fact - the wrong method of choice to end human rights violations. Of course they would want to prevent the Holocaust, but you made the assumption that World War II was being fought to end human rights violations. I completely agree that would ideally be the intent of the court, without a doubt, but World War II wasn't fought in the name of ending human rights violations. You can't make the same assumptions applied to Iraq because in both causes you're trying to skew two crucial facts about the war: a. that the Allies initiated the war to end human rights violations and b. the war was fought to end human rights violations. Neither of these are true. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but German forces were killing civilians of all nationalities, killing thier own citizens for associations with the Jewish faith/communism/Catholics/dissent against the Nazi Party, and the Japanese also comitted horrendous atrocities to the citizen population of China. Other human rights issues played into the war, the Holocaust compeltely aside: attacking and killing citizens purposely in the name of war is unjust by all senses of the word: the war would be worth fighting because ultimately more civilians would have been killed under Hitler's ideology and simply by virtue of how the Axis fought. The protection of citizens, when faced with a an easily identified and legitimate threat, counts as a human rights issue and means World War II would be just. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Simon | Jan 11 2009, 12:19 PM Post #35 |
|
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
Let's see if I have the crux of your argument. 1. Even if the primary objective of a given war is inherently non-humanitarian, if the war effort serves to curb human rights violations, then the war is worth fighting for humanitarian purposes. 2. The success of World War II stopped intentional attacks on civilians by enemies of the United States, as well as that little thing [sarcasm, people, sarcasm, don't look at me strange] called the Holocaust. 3. The bungling of the reconstruction of Iraq following the removal of Saddam Hussein removed humanitarian justification for the war because it put human rights in greater danger than they had been in before. Proof of statements #1-2 is in your last sentence of your most recent post, here:
Evident from your stance on the Iraq War, I can conclude #3 is also accurate. My problem is with #3. I don't believe that the initial screwing up of the reconstruction effort permanently removes the justification from a humanitarian point of view. You have a specific caveat that serves to disadvantage the Iraq War in terms of justification -- that the humanitarian effort must finish sooner, rather than later. Things do get worse before they get better in this case, and to, in effect, state that a prolonged war with humanitarian efforts as an objective is worse than letting a dictator sit on his throne and continue to rape the idea of justice for as long as his regime stands (which could, in effect, be hundreds of years, depending on the strength of succession from one dictator to the next) inherently discredits any moral authority an international court of human rights upholds. |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 11 2009, 01:18 PM Post #36 |
|
Troll
|
I would agree with #1, #2, and #3. I would also serve to agree that wars to end crimes against humanity are just if and only if they actually serve to prevent human rights violations. For example, you can't take out a dictator who kills his own people and then go into his nation and massacre the citizens of said country because then you lose the humanitarian intent of the war. As for your dissent with #3, I think the humanitarian goals must occur sooner than later for an obvious reason: if we don't improve the environment in terms of human rights, then ultimately what does it matter who is in charge? Saddam Hussein could violate human rights all day, but if we take him out and change nothing are we as guilty as Saddam Hussein for not using our power to end human rights violation but only continue to prolong them? They have to happen sooner because that means the intent is actually there: I don't think it's sensible in any sense of the word for people to fight against a nation determined to provide people with running water, electricity, soft ice cream [jk lol], essential human needs, then back away from the nation and leave them to their own devics. Should another agenda arise, such as the United States' strong presence in the construction of the Iraqi government and our merciless search for WMDs and information about Al Qaeda (by unethical means), then we clearly fail to establish humanitarian goals and only work towards assimilation, which continues to curb human rights by forcing people to accept a certain ideology. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Askio | Jan 11 2009, 04:53 PM Post #37 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
Thanks for your impute so far, it actually helped me come up with a few ideas. (Reaver, I didn't know you actually did debate, I thought you were just good at it) Anyho, I can post my finished cases. It was only a tune up for a local, but I went 4-0 with them, with a total of 116 out of a possible 120 speaker points...and still only got second. A girl I know got first, but she would have had to average 29.5 speaks a round, where I averaged 29 to win. If I tied with her though, I will once again have been screwed since they then go to your opponents records to determine who wins, and I've already had that happen against me. Oh well, Crestian in next weekend will be better. (Ill put my own ideas on iraq when school work is being a pain) Edited by Askio, Jan 11 2009, 04:53 PM.
|
 Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| Simon | Jan 11 2009, 06:22 PM Post #38 |
|
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
Oh, this was for a debate club? XD I thought this was something else. Well, if it helped, it helped, I suppose. >_> |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
|
|
|
| Askio | Jan 11 2009, 10:26 PM Post #39 |
|
Crit McGee on Speed
|
no no. Its a topic for LD debate. I just thought that these kinds of topics would be good, for well, debate. I may actually post the PFD and other debate topics as well later on. That is if they aren't total crap or something. |
|
Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 11 2009, 11:54 PM Post #40 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
WHAT other solutions exist to solve them? Waiting for Saddam to die, maybe? But wait, Saddam's sons were just as bad as he was, and maybe worse. So waiting it out wouldn't work. Sanctions against Iraq hadn't worked at all. Negotiations with crazy dictators don't/didn't work. Just what other solutions could have worked there? You made the claim they exist, so back it up. No other solution other than a military one would have liberated the Iraqis.
In this case, I'm calling all of your arguments about the Iraq war bogus then. The Iraq War was not stated to be about protecting the Human Rights of the Iraqis. Therefore, if the Iraq war was about protecting the Human Rights of Iraqis (changes the strategic objectives of the war), then I contest the civilian causalities of the war would be FAR LOWER than what happened when we started the war going after WMDs. Obviously if the objective was to protect the human rights of the Iraqis,the War would not have destroyed so much civilian property, and cost the lives of so many civilians. Therefore, the argument you used, stating that the overall negatives of going to War in Iraq out-weighing the positives of freeing the Iraqi people, is null. If we went in with that purpose, the overall negatives would not outweigh the positives. Therefore, that brings us back to where the hell was the UN in protecting their human rights? We have now concluded you using stats about the Iraq war are irrelevant to this discussion. A Military option then becomes viable, even though that was the only option on the table in the first place. Where was the UN? They didn't care. No moral-authority what-so-ever.
Wait, so, you make the claim had nothing been done with WW2, the civilian death toll would continue to climb, yet for some reason you don't care about the same thing in regards to Iraq? |
|
| |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 12 2009, 06:49 AM Post #41 |
|
Troll
|
A military campaign designed for creating a sphere of influence in the Middle East is not the solution I have in mind when I think "free oppressed peoples". I've stated quite clearly the goal of the Iraq War was far from humanitarian, multiple times, and because of this focus we've done more harm to human rights than we've done good. The best solution would've been a unified task force which a. took Saddam out of the picture b. provided humanitarian help, such as running water and electricity, to Iraqis and c. did not involve themselves with the creation of the Iraqi government in any way. The underlying cause of the war makes a big difference in how it's fought. Which is something I would agree with. I'm not going to call wars which bring about humanitarian good for the world at large bad. Now wait, you can't apply the "if" conditional to one half of the debate and then leave the other back in the Stone Age. The United Nations was, when we had suspected Iraq had WMDs, working hand in hand with the United States. We jumped the gun on the UN Weapons inspectors, who were trying to soothe our baseless fear of nuclear arms in Iraq. However, had American diplomats made the case the war must be fought for humanitarian issues the United Nations might've changed its stance on the war. That's fair to say. To some extent. Saddam Hussein's death toll was roughly ~600,000 people. Source. This, however, is over the span of 24 years. This averages to 25,000 deaths per year. The New York Times claims that 151,000 civilians have been killed in just the first three years of the war Source. That's roughly ~50,000 per year. We've doubled Saddam Hussein's death rate, amongst stripping Iraqis from other comforts they used to have over Saddam Hussein. If he continued to kill ~25,000 per year, then he would need to continue to rule in the same manner for 6-8 years. Plus it looks like we're not leaving anytime soon, so push that total up a couple years (2 for every year of occupation) and Saddam would have to sit for many more years than that. If you look at World War II, however, Hitler was killing civilians and attacking nations unjustly. Had he not been stopped, many more would have died in concentration camps, many other countries would fall to his expansionalist ideals, and he still would've attacked citizens mercilessly. Same as Japan. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Jan 15 2009, 04:23 PM Post #42 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
I think a huge error everybody is making is seeing human rights solely in the terms of loss of life. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, the United States intervention in Iraq caused equal or even slightly worse loss of life as if the United States hadn't of intervened. We still provided the rights of free speech, free press, freedom of religion(in theory), the right to vote, a democratic process, etc. Speaking purely in terms of human rights and not loss of life, I think there's no question the United States acted in the interest of human rights, and did in fact provide much more human rights. I would also argue that the United States is not to blame for the civilian causalities at all. The instability in Iraq is an unfortunate side-effect of our takeover, but we're not the ones blowing people up. How are we to blame for the fact that Iran keeps pouring weapons and militants into the country? I'd place the blame solely at their feet. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 15 2009, 09:57 PM Post #43 |
|
Troll
|
But this is a problem: we gave them these things. Obviously we think these are good things, we think that every citizen should have these rights and soft ice cream and all that jazz. blahblahblahblahblah. But, however, what other wrongs have we done in the process of giving these things? How do we justify the decline in women's rights? The inrease of orphaned children? And what, although I have no news story of this, about our overstepping of boundaries in the world as a result of this war? The United States has believed in a balance of power, which explains why we've signed treaties which promise that we'll disarm (alongside Russia), which is why the security council exists, which is why the United Nations exists. We've done so many wrongs to give rights to people who don't seem to want the rights we've given them. Edited by Reaver, Jan 15 2009, 09:57 PM.
|
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Jan 16 2009, 12:19 PM Post #44 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
The joy of democracy is that if they don't like it, they can always vote it away, but people rarely do that in the absence of a highly compelling reason. The desire for freedom is largely universal.
I would hardly argue we are to blame for the decline in women's rights. I haven't seen any pictures of US soldiers passing around burqas. I would draw your attention to what the woman blames for her loss of rights, "We're not free because of terrorism". If only we were in a war against that terrorism... If anything, we gave them the right to vote and attend school. Through such things, their condition can improve. Orphaned children, while sad, is a temporary trend. If we can build a stable democracy, their sacrifice would not be in vain if a hundred years from now their grandchildren enjoy benefits they'd never dream of.
I wouldn't say we've overstepped a boundary. The attempted assassination of our president in the 90's was reason enough to go to war, honestly, if a bit belated. And how were we supposed to know that both British and US intelligence was flawed regarding WMD? Because a couple of partisans now say they knew it all along? We invited the UN to join, they turned us down. The security council only exists to determine if ALL the countries are going to war. They didn't, we didn't care, and we still got a lot of countries to join us. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 16 2009, 06:27 PM Post #45 |
|
Troll
|
Or, much like the case of Russia, you can eventually and slowly revert into a state which works via dictatorship. You obviously ignored the article: "In the days after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, many women were hopeful that they would enjoy greater parity with men. President Bush said that increasing women's rights was essential to creating a new, democratic Iraq. But interviews with 16 Iraqi women, ranging in age from 21 to 52, show that much of that postwar hope is gone. The younger women say they fear being snatched on their way to school and wonder whether their college degrees will mean anything in the new Iraq. The older women, proud of their education and careers, are watching their independence slip away." What's temporary about creating a generation resentful for American occupation because it left it orphaned? The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree and their anti-american sentiment is going to go a lot farther than their own lifespan. If you were to say the same thing about slavery - that in 100 years after slavery people would consider blacks equal - it took a lot of more work erase that resentment which is still very much present in our community. Plus, since the US is so far removed, it'll be much harder to eradicate those sentiments. Oh please. The "intelligence was wrong" schtick only goes so far. Remember Hans Blix telling us that he found no evidence? Remember the United Nations insisting they wanted to look into anything further before the assumption was made? Remember O'Neil talking about how the Bush Administration wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11? The support from other countries is also laughable: for the most part the United States has been pouring more and more troops into Iraq. "Inviting" the UN to join means nothing if the war is silly; that'd be like Hitler asking the UN if they want to join the Holocaust and then saying that we inivted them... |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
11:37 AM Nov 23
